Cisco Secure Firewall Reviews

We primarily use it as a corporate, perimeter firewall for traffic to the internet and back, for surfing. We also have some site-to-site connections with customers.

So far, there hasn't been any breach, so we are very happy.

It has also helped to reduce the operational costs of our firewall. There is a report that is automatically generated. You don't have to search for and prepare everything by yourself. You don't need staff to prepare the information because it is automated. We only go through this report once a week and if there are some special events, we can take care of them.

The next-generation features, like IPS, among others, are the most valuable. IPS is mandatory in modern networks for protection against malicious attacks and network anomalies.

Also, it gives you great visibility when doing deep packet inspection, but you have to do HTTP inspection. If you don't do HTTP inspection, the visibility is not complete. That is the case for every firewall vendor.

The ease of use, when it comes to managing Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewalls, is getting better because the UI is improving. It was a bit cumbersome in previous versions. Checkpoint, for example, has one of the most intuitive user interfaces, and now Cisco is really improving.

The only drawback of the user interface is when it comes to policies. When you open it and click on the policies, you have to move manually left and right if you want to see the whole field within the cell. Checkpoint has a very detailed user interface. Cisco is getting better and becoming more and more user-friendly.

Cisco needs a more intuitive user interface. When you know what to do, it's easy. Otherwise, you need training. You can install it and do the initial configuration, but if you don't have the proper training it's also possible to configure it the wrong way. If that happens, some things might pass through that you don't know about.

We have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for about five years, from the beginning of the Cisco Firepower 2100 Series.

We were on version 6.2.2 but now we're up to version 7.7.0, and it has really improved. It was not hard to implement but there were many bugs in the earlier version and some were serious, but now it's stable. There are no more bugs. It's really getting better. I would recommend Firepower to every customer now because it's stable. It's a really nice firewall.

The model we have is okay for our environment, so it's scalable. We haven't seen any problems in that regard. There are 50 or 60 devices behind it and about 500 clients. It is used in a very specific environment for a large Slovenian system.

The device has achieved its purpose. We won't implement any other features.

Cisco support is the best, especially if you compare it to other vendors. Cisco may be a bit expensive compared to other vendors, but the support is really good. When you open a case they're really responsive and they resolve every case. This is my personal experience, not only when it comes to Firepower but for the whole Cisco portfolio, which I have been working with since 2005.

The initial configuration was done within a few hours, but getting all the policies in place took about a month. That was not related to the firewall, it was related to all the requirements from management and from other people as well. But the configuration to get it set up initially was straightforward, nothing special.

My colleagues and I did the deployment. We are an internal team. We are integrators, so we were able to do it by ourselves.

When it comes to XDR, the cost-effectiveness of this firewall depends on the use case because you don't always need XDR functionality. SecureX is included free of charge, so from that point of view, maybe Cisco is not that expensive compared to other vendors.  Other vendors' XDR products are not free of charge. 

But if you just look at just the firewall functionality, Checkpoint is expensive but Cisco is not the cheapest. Fortinet is cheaper.

Where we have seen ROI is due to the support, time savings, ease of management, and the reporting.

Aside from the user interface, which is getting better, Cisco is at the top for functionality and in all other respects. We work with Fortinet, Checkpoint, and we used to work with Juniper, in addition to Cisco.

With Cisco, there are a lot of features such as the network map. Cisco builds the whole network map of the machines you have behind your firewall and gives you insight into the vulnerabilities and attributes that the host has. Checkpoint and Fortinet don't have that functionality directly on the firewall. They don't give you that direct visibility into the host, such as which operating the host has.

We don't work with Juniper anymore because its user interface is really not okay. You only have the CLI or you have to use Security Director for management, which is very complex and not user-friendly. That is why we abandoned Juniper as a product.

I would rate Cisco at eight out of 10 overall, and Check Point would be a seven. Check Point fields a great solution in this space, but they have very bad support, and support is one of the most important things. Having great blogs doesn't help if support doesn't come through when you need it.

We are specifically using 7.0 Firepower in several different areas. We have them as an IPS within the core, IPS on the edge, and we're also using the AnyConnect Client as our basis for VPN connection into corporate and other applications.

Firepower NGFW has improved my organization in several ways. Before, we were trying to stamp out security threats and issues, it was a one-off type of way to attack it. I spent a lot of manpower trying to track down the individual issues or flare-ups that we would see. With Cisco's Firepower Management, we're able to have that push up to basically one monitor and one UI and be able to track that and stop threats immediately. It also gives us a little more granularity on what those threats might be. 

We were able to stop hundreds of threats. For killing threats, we were able to get several hundred now in comparison to the one-off that we used to be able to do.

Dynamic policies are very important for us because we do not have the manpower to really look at everything all the time. So having a dynamic way of really registering, looking at, and having certain actions tied to that are incredibly effective for us in slowing any kind of threat.

We're getting there as far as using the application, using it to go to the application level, we're at the infancy of that. We're looking at definitely tying that into our critical applications so that we can see exactly what they're doing, when they're doing it, and being able to track that.

Firepower's Snort 3.0 IPS allows us to maintain performance while running more rules with the advent of 3.0 comparatively to 2X, we have seen at least a 10 to 15% increase in speed where it seems to be more effective. The updates seem to be more effective in finding malicious information. We've definitely seen at least a 10 to 15% increase on tying policy to 3.0.

The features that we find the biggest bang for the buck are for Firepower overall. We're looking at AnyConnect, which is one of the big features. The other valuable features are IPS along with the Geotagging and the Geosync features, and of course the firewall, the basic subset of firewall infrastructure and policy management.

We've looked at other vendors, but Cisco by far has taken the lead with a holistic approach where we don't have to manage multiple different edges at one time. We can actually push policy out from our core out to the edge. The policy can be as granular as we need it to be. So the administration, also the upgradability of the edge is for us because we need to have it 24/7. The upgradability is also another piece of management, logging, and all the other little aspects of the monitoring part.

Using deep packet inspection, especially with 7.0, since it's just come out in 7.0, we're able to see much more granularly into the packet where before we could actually give a general overview using NetFlow. This gives us much more granularity into what is exactly happening on our network and snapping in the Cisco StealthWatch piece gives us the end-to-end way of monitoring our network and making sure that it's secure.

The overall ease of use when it comes to managing Cisco Secure Firewall is one of the reasons that we ended up going with Cisco because the ease of use, basically having one UI to be able to control all of our end devices, policy, geolocation, AnyConnect, all the different pieces of that in one area has been phenomenal.

Cisco Secure Firewall helped to reduce our firewall operational costs because previously if we were not using Cisco's Firepower, we would have had either Cisco ASA or another manufacturer, and we would have had those everywhere. We would have had still two at every site, several within our infrastructure, and the management of those is much more difficult because it's done by one-off.

As far as saving Adventist Health money, I would have to say that it's not necessarily the actual physical product, but the time, labor that we would have had to have to be able to monitor and administer that, and also the time to find malicious issues and security areas that we were unable to see before. So, it's tough to put a cost on that, but it would probably be several hundred thousand dollars overall if you're looking at whether we got hit with malware or with some of the other issues that we're seeing, especially within healthcare. If we were hacked, that would cost us millions.

One of the few things that are brought up is that for the overall management, it would be great to have a cloud instance of that. And not only just a cloud instance, but one of the areas that we've looked at is using an HA type of cloud. To have the ability to have a device file within a cloud. If we had an issue with one, the other one would pick up automatically.

The other part of that is that applying policy still takes longer than we expect. Every version that comes out, the speed is actually increased, but I would love to see that, even a little more as far as when we're actually deploying policy.

We have been using Firepower's series for at least the last six years.

We're staggered right now. The Firepower Management Console is at 7.0 and most of our Firepower units are at 6.6.

We have two areas for deployment. We have them as an edge at our markets, we term our hospitals as markets, but each one of the hospitals will have an HA Pair of the Firepower model. And we also have them in our core, within the ACI infrastructure. We use them as a core firewall along with an Edge firewall.

We've been using Firepower, the Threat Defense, and the Management Console for about six and a half years and I think we've had maybe two issues with it. And most of those were due to either our policy settings or something that we messed up. We've never had to return a box and we've never run into any major bugs that have actually hindered the actual security of the system.

Scalability so far has been fantastic because we started with four Firepower Threat Defense boxes, but really after that, now we have 14 and we're going to be pushing that to 44 to 46 devices. The implementation has been pretty seamless and pretty easy. It's been great.

We use it exclusively for edge and core for firewall and for policy and for IPS and AnyConnect. We plan on continuing to integrate that tighter. So in the future, we probably will not grow that many physical devices, but we plan on actually integrating those tighter into the system, tighter with integration, with Cisco's ISE, and tighter integration with our ACI infrastructure. So at the end of the day, we don't see us going any further away from using Firepower as our core security edge device.

My company has been using Cisco for many years. One of the huge pieces for us is, of course, the supportability and ongoing update, maintenance, and care. We've had a great relationship with Cisco. The tech is outstanding. Typically, we will open a tech case and they will know exactly what the issue is within two to three hours if it's a very difficult one. Typically they even know what it is when we actually open the case.

We've actually had a fantastic relationship working with Cisco. They've had a fast turnaround, great tech support, and we have not run into any issues thus far with the Firepower overall.

Prior to actually using Firepower, we were still a Cisco shop. We used Cisco ASA exclusively, and it was fantastic. But with the advent of Firepower, being able to manage, monitor, and upgrade has really cut back our time on those processes by less than half of what we had before. We were using the good old ASA for many years.

We found that the initial setup using Firepower products was actually very simple. The initial configuration for the Management Console was very straightforward. Adding devices usually takes a few minutes. And then once you've got them physically set up in your Management Console, it's streamlined. It's actually very simple.

One of the great features of having the Cisco Firepower Management Console is having the ability to group. So we have each one of our hospitals as a group, so we can actually do any device configuration within a group. They're HA so that when we do an upgrade, it is seamless because when it fires off the upgrade, it will actually force the HA over automatically as part of the upgrade. And the other part of that is policy management. We have several policies, but specifically, one for the general use at our hospitals has been phenomenal because you build out one policy and you can push that out to all of your end nodes with one push.

We require two staff members to actually implement and devise the initial configuration.

At my company, you have to be at least a senior or an architect in order to manage any type of firewalling, whether that's the IPS, the actual firewall itself, or AnyConnect. So we have senior network engineers that are assigned for that task.

We typically have one person that will actually rotate through the group for the maintenance. There's a senior network engineer that will maintain that on a daily basis. Typically, it doesn't take maintenance every day. The biggest maintenance for us comes to updating policy, verifying the geolocation information is correct, and any upgrades in the future. So typically that takes about one to two people.

We did not actually use any external authority as far as setting up, maintenance, and configuration. It all comes directly from Cisco because of our partnership with Cisco, we have had a fantastic cast of system engineers and techs when needed. We haven't had to go out of our partnership with Cisco to actually implement these, to upgrade, or update.

Cisco's pricing is actually pretty good. We get a decent discount, but when you look across the board, if you're looking at a Cisco firewall, Firepower device, a Palo Alto device, or a Juniper device, they're going to be pretty comparable. A lot of people say, "Oh, Cisco is so expensive." But when you boil it down, when you look at the licensing structure for Firepower, you look at the actual device cost and how much that costs over time, they pretty much are right in line, if not less, depending on what you're buying for Firepower. So we've actually had a great run with that, and we feel confident that we're getting the best price. I haven't seen anything better than the supportability of that.

We actually did look at another vendor when we were looking at initially grabbing Firepower, to bring in as our corporate firewall and our main inspection engine. So we did look at Palo Alto and we also looked at Juniper SRX series, but both of those didn't really have the overall manageability and tightness with the Cisco infrastructure as we would want it to. So there was nothing necessarily security-wise wrong with them, but they were not a good fit for our environment.

The biggest lesson that we've learned is in a couple of different ways. One is how to keep your policy clean. We've learned that we've really had to keep that from overextending what we want to do. It also has great feedback as you're building that out so that you can look at it and you figure out how you are going to be able to really implement this in a way that won't break something or that won't overshadow some other policy that you have. That's probably one of the biggest things that we've learned. The way that you build out your policy and the way that you use that on a daily basis is very intuitive. And it also gives you a lot of feedback as you're building that out.

The advice that I would give anybody looking at Firepower is to look at it from an overall standpoint. If you want something that you can monitor and administer well, that you can update very quickly, and that gives you all of the security aspects that anybody else can on the market, it's going to be really hard to beat because of the Management Console. With this, you've got one tool that you can actually do the device updates, device configuration and all the policy management in one area. So I would say, definitely take a look at it. It's got a great UI that is very straightforward to use. It is very intuitive and it works really well out-of-the-box. And it does not take math science to be able to implement it.

I would rate Firepower a nine out of ten. I can't think of anything that would be a 10. It's mature, it's effective and it's usable.

For companies prioritizing security, the optimal choice is one that offers a range of feeds to cater to diverse needs. This is particularly crucial for organizations implementing DDoS mitigation. The preferred solutions typically align with the top server vendors, with Cisco, Forti, and Barracuda consistently ranking among the top three vendors we collaborate with.

It's not unexpected, but it's a common scenario where customers request dual layers of security. For instance, when dealing with regulatory compliance, especially in financial sectors regulated by entities like the Central Bank, having two distinct units is often mandated. If a client predominantly uses a solution like Palo Alto, they may need to incorporate another vendor such as Cisco or Forti. Importantly, there's a significant disparity in interfaces and management platforms between these vendors, necessitating careful consideration when integrating them into the overall security architecture.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for the past ten years. 

The solution is extremely scalable and based on my experience, I would rate it 7 out of 10.

Cisco is a well-established company, and it offers accessible support, both locally and through online resources. The abundance of information makes it easy to find the necessary details and assistance.

Positive

The implementation timeline for our firewall is contingent on the readiness of the policy. If the policy is prepared, the deployment can occur within a day. However, if the policy is not finalized, a brief meeting is convened to gather the necessary data for rule establishment. Once the information is ready, the implementation on VMware proceeds. Notably, there is a requisite waiting period, such as fine-tuning for optimal rule configuration, as each customer has unique requirements. It's crucial to tailor the rules to fit the specific needs of each customer, as there is no one-size-fits-all best practice in this context.

It is extremely expensive compared to its competitors and I would rate it 2 out of 10. 

I would recommend this solution and rate it 8 out of 10.

We mostly use Cisco Secure Firewall as a VPN concentrator and for its firewall features.

Using Cisco Secure Firewall has helped grow our familiarity with people that know Cisco.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Secure Firewall is its ease of configuration and that it's scalable for firewalls and VPNs.

Changes you make in the GUI sometimes do not reflect in the command line and vice versa.

We have been using the solution since its inception, so, for many years now.

We did not have any stability issues with Cisco Secure Firewall.

We did not see any limitations with Cisco Secure Firewall’s scalability.

We also use Aruba in our organization. We never have to factor in extra development time when we go to a new major version of Cisco. With Aruba, we have a pretty drawn-out development timeline for any upgrades or software improvements. Aruba and Cisco Secure Firewall are very different in their implementation and development.

The initial setup of the Cisco Secure Firewall is very straightforward. The average time it took to deploy the solution was very short. Deploying the VM and automating our configurations took a couple of minutes.

Cisco smart licensing is a hassle for a disconnected environment. However, I haven't licensed anything in a while. There have been many changes, making it easier to license disconnected devices connected to the internet.

ASAv uses the solution as a VPN concentrator and a firewall because it could be used for both. It can be used for landing AnyConnect clients on ASAv and as a firewall.

What sets Cisco Firewall apart from other products is that when we do an update, we know we're not going to break a lot of things, and there are not a lot of bugs. The integration on the Cisco side is pretty good.

Most of our team is familiar with Cisco, and everyone knows what to expect when they log in. So it's easy in that way.

I like the application visibility and control with Cisco Secure Firewall. My only complaint is that the changes made in the GUI sometimes do not reflect in the command line.

I haven't had any problems with Cisco Secure Firewall. It's very straightforward and reliable. Also, it's trustworthy because it has the Cisco name.

Cisco Secure Firewall has helped free up our IT staff for other projects. The product is quite heavy into automation. So with it being Cisco, it is very scalable in generating configs. The solution saves a week or two for implementation and integration.

Cisco Secure Firewall has helped our organization improve its cybersecurity resilience through the reliability aspect.

You know what you're getting when you use an ASAv from Cisco. Cisco Secure Firewall is a great product in terms of reliability and scalability.

Overall, I rate Cisco Secure Firewall ten out of ten.

One of the most important roles of Cisco Secure Firewall is as a central firewall for the internet. We use it for segmentation of the outside network, DMZ networks, inside networks, and also as an intrusion prevention system for protecting our resources from the internet. All Access Control Lists are implemented on this firewall.

These days, it's normal to require that networks be more open because of the recent changes brought about by the COVID pandemic. The need for hybrid work environments and more collaborations has made securing the network more challenging. However, Cisco offers us monitoring and configuration, and with one platform, we are able to be more flexible and be able to control our security and our network.

The security features that protect our networks are the most valuable for me and my department, as we are responsible for the security of our network. We investigate cases and analyze traffic to see what's going on. These features are also very valuable when we are investigating communication between some services in the bank and what's happening in the network.

We are very satisfied with Cisco Secure Firewall for securing our infrastructure from end to end so we can detect and remediate threats. We have not seen a lot of false positives, and we haven't seen many situations when the traffic was interrupted without a proper cause. We are confident that the signatures that Cisco Secure Firewall uses are very good and reliable. For us, this is very important because we are a relatively small security team, and we don't have much manpower to be able to analyze every signature or event. By default, Cisco Secure Firewall is reliable, and that is the most important factor for us. Cisco is a large company that invests in security, and if it has reliable signatures and processes in intrusion detection, then that is very good for us.

Implementing Cisco Secure Firewall has saved us time because we rely on most of the out-of-the-box signatures. It has reduced the time and effort spent in configuration within the security network.

We have encountered problems when implementing new signatures and new versions on our firewall. Sometimes, there is a short outage of our services, and we have not been able to understand what's going on. This is an area for improvement, and it would be good to have a way to monitor and understand why there is an outage.

We use Cisco Secure Firewall and Cisco ISE.

In general, Cisco Secure Firewall is stable. We have had problems when we automatically deployed some signatures. There have been issues with the memory of the Firewall Management Center, and we've had to reload the system.

Our company has approximately 2,500 employees and 500 devices. In terms of scalability, Cisco Secure Firewall is sufficient for our needs.

We usually work with our local partner because it's much more convenient and faster. Because of their experience, they are able to solve some of our problems or issues without Cisco's technical support. For bigger problems such as bugs, we work with Cisco's technical support.

Because we mainly work with our local partner for technical support, I would rate them at ten out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup was relatively simple for us. During migration, we used the Cisco Firewall migration tool. From our point of view, the migration tool was okay.

We have a very reliable partner who helps us with Cisco products. They helped us to deploy Cisco Secure Firewall. I think it's important for every company to have local partners with enough knowledge and experience on whom they can rely. 

Our experience working with our partner was great. They have a lot of knowledge and experience with implementation.

We have always used Cisco firewalls. Cisco products have been the standard in networking in our company for many years. This has been beneficial because some of our core IT activities are connected with Cisco. Also, it has been proven that Cisco Secure Firewall is a reliable product that can help us have stable and reliable networks and services.

We have some experience with Check Point, which we started using recently. Cisco is more hardware-oriented, and Check Point is more application-orientated. The two vendors have a slightly different approach to the same problem.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco Secure Firewall at eight because it's a very reliable product. We can use predefined signatures and don't have to do a lot of customization. However, we have had a few small issues with the deployment of some signatures and with the availability of Firewall Management Center.

We are currently utilizing the Cisco Secure Firewall, partially due to its historical relevance and partly because Cisco continues to maintain a prominent position in providing client VPN access.

We have employed Cisco Firepower and ASA on Firepower to facilitate client VPN access and to enforce fundamental layer four security policies.

We utilize security products in central locations to provide VPN access for clients throughout Europe.

The implementation of the Cisco Secure Firewall has had a positive impact on our organization, as evidenced by our ability to use our store apps on mobile devices through AnyConnect even when Wi-Fi is unavailable. This is made possible by the utilization of 3G, 4G, or 5G internet access while maintaining a secure connection on our mobile devices.

Cisco Secure has enabled my organization to save time, as demonstrated by our ability to swiftly open new stores by utilizing applications on mobile devices without having to establish the entire infrastructure at once. The amount of time saved varies depending on the country we are operating in, ranging from weeks to months.

The most beneficial aspect of the Cisco Secure Firewall is the AnyConnect component within the firewall package, which we selected specifically for VPN usage due to its exceptional integration with various third-party devices and applications.

The overall licensing structure could improve to make the solution better.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for approximately 15 years.

My experiences with the Cisco Secure Firewall support have varied. Since we access it through a partner, some issues are quickly resolved, while others require more time and effort.

I rate the support from Cisco Secure Firewall a six out of ten.

Neutral

While I have not personally utilized other security products, our organization also employs FortiGate devices and applications for security purposes alongside Cisco Secure Firewall.

Acquiring licensing for Cisco Secure Firewall can be a bit cumbersome, therefore a more straightforward licensing process would be preferable. 

The licensing process can be frustrating, as it requires selecting between on-box or per-client options and other related considerations. Simplifying this process would be beneficial.

We are using access switches, routers, catalysts, and ISR products. Additionally, we are using Cisco as a platform, which is somewhat old, and Cisco ASA on Firepower devices.

I would advise others to thoroughly evaluate their requirements before selecting a security solution. While some products may seem like an obvious choice, it is important to take the time to assess the available options and determine which one best suits your specific needs. This approach is wise and can ultimately lead to a more effective security solution.

I rate Cisco Secure Firewall a seven out of ten.

We use them for some of our border firewalls in our data centers and also as our VPN concentrator. 

It's the VPN side of things that has been most useful for us. It allows us to secure our users even when they're working from home. They are able to access all of our resources, no matter where they are in the world.

I don't have any specific improvements to recommend. However, when you compare the throughput of a Cisco firewall to the competitors, especially Fortinet, what you find is that Cisco has lagged a little bit behind in terms of firewall throughput, especially for the price that you pay for that throughput.

We've been using Cisco firewalls for probably 10 years.

We have 105,000 users, and they all have access to use a VPN to connect back into our network. We found that it works very well for us, and it's very scalable to the number of users that we have. That's why we continue using it.

It's very good. Cisco has excellent support. It's better than most of our vendors. I'd rate their support a ten out of ten. 

Positive

I don't believe so. We've used Cisco, at least for this specific use case, for a long time.

The enterprise agreement that we have has helped with the pricing because it allows us to consume licensing in more of a consumption model versus a per-user type model. That has helped us a lot.

I don't know. I wasn't with the organization then.

We don't use Cisco Secure for securing our infrastructure from end to end to be able to detect and mediate threats. We have other products that serve as our endpoint detection and especially for the end-to-end side of things. That's not really our strongest use case for it. Cisco Secure hasn't helped save our organization any time or operations expenditure because we have other products that we use for that.

Overall, I'd rate Cisco Secure Firewall a ten out of ten.

We are one of our Swedish municipalities. We use this solution to support our environment and keep it safe and secure.

At the moment, Cisco SecureX is just for the monitoring part. We are migrating servers from an old infrastructure to a new one. It monitors how they're behaving on the network.

We have 500 sites using it. It's a mix of remote sites and connected sites. We have a lot of devices. We are a Swedish municipality, so we do everything from healthcare to taking care of the roads. We have a wide spectrum of users, so we have to supply everyone with what they need. So, we have a lot of devices in our network.

Cisco SecureX is doing a good job for us in terms of securing our infrastructure from end to end so that we can detect and remediate threats. It's detecting what we want it to detect, and it's protecting us from what we want to be protected against. So, it does its job. That's our need at the moment.

It has saved us time. Attackers are constantly trying to get hold of our environment. We've had around 20 to 30 breach attempts to get ahold of our environment. It protects us from that. It also protects us when an attempt is underway. We can see them starting to get into our network, so we can prevent it in time. The time saved varies. It can be days of work.

Its efficiency and security are the most important. We are more efficient and more secure.

We use Cisco switches and firewalls, Cisco DNA, and Cisco SecureX. The integration between various Cisco products is working very well. It's quite seamless for us.

There should be more integration with Microsoft Identity.

We get customer support through ITEA for a bunch of solutions. We get the help we need. I'd rate them a nine out of ten. You can always do better.

We haven't used any other solution for a long time. We have been a Cisco customer for a long period.

I was involved in its design. Some parts of the initial setup were quite easy and some parts were quite complex. We were quite early adopters of some parts of the Cisco brand, so we had some challenges, but overall, it was quite straightforward.

For some parts, we took the help of a third party called ITEA. Our experience with them was good.

We haven't calculated the overall ROI. There are different areas we use it for. For some management areas, we can calculate ROI, but in some areas, we can't.

You get what you pay for. It's always priced based on what you get and what it can handle. It's acceptable.

To those evaluating this solution, I'd advise finding out what you want to use it for. Our usage is quite basic. Overall, I am quite satisfied with what we are using it for.

Overall, I'd rate it a nine out of ten.